Thursday, July 26, 2018

Identity politics is the present and even more so the future

The following graph juxtaposes expressed hypothetical support for a candidate who is X but who is otherwise generic (ie nothing is known about his or her political orientation, partisan affiliation, etc). The first bar for each X, displayed in a color based on my editorial discretion, shows net support (% more likely to support - % less likely to support) among respondents who are themselves X. The second bar for each X, shown in grey, shows net support among respondents who are not themselves X.

For example, for a Muslim candidate, we get net support among Muslim respondents of +75.1. The percentage of Muslims who say they would be more likely to support a Muslim candidate minus the percentage of Muslims who say they would be less likely to support a Muslim candidate is a staggering +75.1. The vast majority of Muslims say they'd be more likely to support a Muslim candidate, virtually none say they'd be less likely to, and the residual say it'd make no difference either way.

Among non-Muslims, we get net support for a Muslim candidate of -43.2. The percentage of non-Muslims who say they would be more likely to support a Muslim candidate minus the percentage of non-Muslims who say they would be less likely to support a Muslim candidate is -43.2. Deus vult!

Without knowing anything else about a hypothetical candidate beyond his or her sex, race, or religion, people who share that sex, race, or religion are substantially more likely to support him or her while people who do not share the demographic characteristic in question are more modestly less likely to do so (with the exception of men, who are marginally more likely to support a female candidate because she is female than oppose her because she is female).

This data only supports half of Lee Kuan Yew's claim and contradicts the other part. Strongly identifying Muslims of Indian descent will vote for another Muslim of North African descent in preference to a Hindu Indian. Indeed, they would likely vote for a cabbage in preference to a Hindu Indian. An honest race realism must acknowledge that people are not, by and large, racially conscious, that racial consciousness is not natural, and that it is not particularly rare to find strong identities that transcend racial categories. Civic Nationalism may or may not be desirable, but it is certainly possible, you just need to do it right.

That's true in India, where the ideology is loyalty to your religion, your caste and your family, but not really true in America, where the ideology is Hate Whitey. Over here Hindus and Dindus and Peaceful Islams all enthusiastically vote for each other over whitey.

What Is To Be Done? We need to somehow replace the official ideology, as promulgated by the mass media and educational institutions. Our options in this endeavor range from the fanciful to the unpleasant.

Yes and no. The data seems to show that American Muslims (the most Peaceful True Islams in the world, for what it's worth) have a a strong pro-Muslim voting preference, which is essentially non-racial and distinct from (though overlapping) generic pro-brown sentiment. In general, the most powerful identities are not racially based. I see no evidence that they have ever been racially based. On the contrary, every racially based movement seems to have been a desperate and transparently artificial attempt to get off the liberal train made by people staring at the abyss.`

As I have suggested before, to the extent that identity overlaps with ethnicity, the causality usually runs in the opposite direction because, as a practical matter, it's easier to educate your children and discourage outmarriage than to convert people.

Islam has a serendipitous position in Western civilisation because, for historical reasons, most Muslims are not-whites and so there's little practical problem in having a Muslim identity and following the official ideology, LGBTQERTY issues being the only real sticking point. This is also true for other religions, but as a rule they have followed the same pattern as Jews in seamlessly converting to the official ideology over 3 or so generations without really noticing what they are doing. With Islam, however, the Cathedral has maybe bitten off more than it can chew. I suspect that Islam will eventually provide the exogenous shock that will bring down the liberal system. To an extent, we see that happening already.

@snorlax "Of course they don't ask the most interesting one, which is 'a white candidate.'"

They included "Mormon" for the purpose of conflating a particularly "white" demographic's religion with racial identity politics. It was a rather lame fig leaf but probably enough to take out the cognitive dissonance of a small but potentially influential portion of the readers.

He said in accordance with race and religion, both of which are true at least to some extent. I wonder if in a Dem primary between a white Christian and a black Muslim how black Christians would vote. My guess is they'd go overwhelmingly for the black guy, but maybe not.

If there were no identity politics, there would be no bars extending in either direction. If over one-third of blacks and Hispanics say they are more likely to vote for a black or Hispanic candidate, respectively, the true number is probably higher than that since just about everyone knows that's not the answer that is supposed to be given.

I wish the samples were larger--they range from ~6k to ~20k, which is of course good for national polling--so we could take a look at individual states. My guess is in states that are more racially diverse--or bifurcated in the case of states like MS and AL--the tendency to vote one's skin is stronger than in states like Vermont or Idaho.

Civic nationalism can work in a nation. I don't think it can work in an empire, though.

Wrt Islam bringing down the system, if these sets of questions were asked about in Europe I'd guess we'd see the same, with Islam being the hardest divide of all (Muslims really favoring Muslims and non-Muslims being especially apprehensive about Muslims). This suggests you're probably right, at least if anything will bring it down, it'll likely be them.

BDC,

There are always issues with self-reported data. But we work with what we have.

Jim/Snorlax,

It's too bad Romney overshadows the Mormon question so much. Of course there are salient characters for some of the others--Obama for black, Hillary for woman--but not all of them (Asian? Here in flyover country that still feels totally hypothetical).

Z,

The Narrative could not handle how non-whites would likely respond to this. It also could not handle how whites would respond, since they'd be the least likely X to support themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if the figure was even slightly negative. I think snorlax's estimate earlier is very plausible. White privilege??? LOL!

That fabled Jewish ethnocentrism doesn't appear to be rearing its ugly head here. Almost as if they vote like generic progressives. (Or, alternatively, if you crave the conspiratorial: they know that it doesn't matter who holds public office.)

Indeed, in America, the Peaceful Islams are well-assimilated; they've taken to working creative destruction in the Financial District like goats to buggering.

While it's true that factors such as religion, political orientation, social class or sex can be powerful group identifiers (intersectionality!), I disagree that race or ethnicity are necessarily weak ones. You would have a hard time finding a stronger group consciousness than among American blacks, and their obsession with all things black blackety-black. Sure, that's in part due to the official ideology, but it's clearly mostly innate.

If there were some sort of dispute between you and an African asylum seeker, towards whom do you expect a typical Ethiopian Jew would be instinctively biased?

In a dispute between a gentile white British tourist and an Ethiopian Jew, towards whom would you be instinctively biased?

Now, I don't know the answer to either of those questions, but obviously I have my theory.

Regarding Islam and 白左: If we stipulate that leftism is the impulse to disturb or destroy the existing order, traditions and culture, the apparent contradiction is simple to reconcile.

We place groups such as communists and anarchists at the "far-left" extreme. Like all leftists, but the most of all, these groups fervently believe in concepts such as racial, sexual and economic egalitarianism, state secularism, cultural liberalism, science!, internationalism, liberal democracy etc. Or in other words the fair distribution of goods, the futility of violence, the universal brotherhood of man and the reification of community.

These concepts are key to the Western cultural inheritance, that is, Christian theology, with clear precursors in preceding Greco-Roman tradition. The communist or anarchist belongs to and indeed leads the Western tradition. Dawkins, consider yourself pwned.

What does this mean? Leftism itself is the last unprincipled exception! Recall the example of the French ultra-royalists, or their English counterparts the ultra-Tories, who were too royalist for the king. Political Islam, placed on the Western political spectrum, is ultra-leftism. It rejects the Western tradition in its entirety, including those portions subscribed to by the far left: Fair distribution of goods? Futility of violence? Universal brotherhood of man? Reification of community? No, no, no and nope.

Why does the left support Islam? Same as always: Pas d'ennemis à gauche. Turning Paris into ISIS achieves all the degeneracy with none of the liberalism. The Death of the West. The apotheosis of leftism.

This is why there are extremely close ties and heavily overlapping social networks between the far-left and Islamists, both in the Middle East and in Europe. This is why Erdoğan's "leftist" (...not) opposition is far more Turkish nationalist, militarist and anti-immigration, and likewise in Iran. And Dawkins, unable to make room in his theology for ultra-leftism, gets pwned again.

"Indeed, in America, the Peaceful Islams are well-assimilated; they've taken to working creative destruction in the Financial District like goats to buggering."

Outside of Appalachia, America hasn't come anywhere close to being ethnically homogeneous for a truly sustained period; after all, New York was originally called New Amsterdam! America's original colonies were divied up largely along ethnic lines, with the Puritans of New England, the aristocratic Brits (such as the Cavaliers) of the lowland and coastal South, and The Scots-Irish Borderer people of Appalachia and the upper/inland South. The Mid-Atlantic, esp. Pennsylvania, was the most diverse of all as the farm-heavy region initially was favored by laid-back Brit Midlanders, who in turn were soon joined by like-minded Dutch, Germans, and French (the Mid-Atlantic has always been a focal point of immigration into the US, much to the chagrin of New England and the South who've always been more defensive about tradition than the Mid-Atlantic, whose openess to new peoples and cultures soon spread to the Midwest (the egalitarian optimism of Nordic peoples explains to a large degree how America slipped through the grasp of both Puritans and both strains of Southern culture, the neo-feudal type favored in the low-lands and the chaotic type favored in the hills and mountains). The pattern, well established in Europe, of flatter regions being more progressive, high trust, and upbeat, while rugged topography creates conservatism, clannishness, and pessimism, was soon duplicated in America.

Muslims in America aren't confronted with thousands of years of history created by one or two Euro sub-groups; no, what Muslims experience (outside of Appalaicha, and perhaps New England small towns) is a country whose very identity is predicated on a lack of control, a lack of dominance, by a particular ethnic group. That's why America is so easy to assimilate into; you just have to understand and respect a handful of principles, rather than try and emulate an ethnic culture that's existed with consistency for thousands of years.

"He said in accordance with race and religion, both of which are true at least to some extent. I wonder if in a Dem primary between a white Christian and a black Muslim how black Christians would vote. My guess is they'd go overwhelmingly for the black guy, but maybe not. "

Muslims, Mormons, Mittens......Religion is useful primarily as a proxy for ethnicity. Keith Ellison is a black first, and a Muslim second, to Millennials and Z. I think older generations came of age when religion was very important; Christ-cucks will earnestly say that they like religious black folk more than they like secular whites. Younger people, liberal or otherwise, are probably better at understanding the reality that religion is generally a proxy for ethnicity, and moreover, one's racial ID supercedes everything else, religion included.

I just read that one of China's provinces is known for it's high levels of Islam, and wouldn't you know it, a lot of Kazakh Muslims have made inroads there. Well, to the Han Chinese you're a Kazakh first, and a Muslim second. Adopting the religion and culture of Han Chinese people wouldn't make a difference, if you started out as a Kazakh immigrant.

It's also interesting that Ash. Jews are essentially interchangeable with gentile whites to most Americans, with only two real exceptions:1) White nationalist types2) Blacks who have had negative experiences with "urban whites" (e.g. Jews) will often single out Jews for living up to the Shylock stereotype. Whites generally might treated with suspicion, but when it comes to banks/lawyers/accountants etc. Jews are blasted with the most hostility of all. Since blacks tend to be financially hapless, and frequently deal with slum lords, they of all people have an understandable grudge against Jews, whose surnames blacks quickly become familiar with.

On the other hand, such groups as Mormons are totally meaningless to blacks. Blacks only make a distinction between Jews and non-Jewish whites.

WRT original question, I think that Big Man blacks, and affluent/more bourgeois blacks, might be willing to overlook race. But the lion's share of blacks? Forget it. Ain't gonna happen. Until evidence surfaces that prole blacks (who are like 80-90% of black people) are capable of going on a jury and not automatically favoring the black plaintiff or defendant over the non-black one, I will continue to assume that blacks always favor tribal loyalty ahead of ideology or principles.

It's funny how Boomers like Steve Bannon have to repeat, to the point of tedium, that Boomers like him and Trump are not actually racially prejudiced; no, we just want America to be nice and comfy to anyone who can live in accordance with our best values. Many of them really do believe that Islam is at fault for corrupting otherwise gifted people who just happen to belong to a certain race.

Meanwhile, Millennials and Gen Z can't help but scream "racism" at criticism of Islam; younger generations intuit that religion is extremely tied up ethnic and racial identity. One doesn't make fun of Amish people for their beliefs and lifestyle; no, you're really making fun of a certain class of white people and by extension all white people. That's why criticizing Somali Muslim culture is really criticizing a certain group of East Africans for the race they're a part of.

Anyone who actually interacts with Jews in a daily basis would tell you that Jews are not "extremely clannish". Anti-semites pretend they know everything there is to know about Jews, but how can one know about Jewish individuals and Jewish culture unless one lives amongst, becomes friends with, goes to school with, and works with many Jews? If you go out of your way to avoid Jews then you probably know nothing about them.

The average Reform Jew of Ashkenazi ethnicity is not more clannish than the average Irish or Italian. The only Jews who exhibit abnormal levels of clannishness are the Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim and the Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews...in the case of the Mizrahim and the Sephardim, it's not because they are Jewish but because they are Middle Eastern. Middle Eastern Christians, Muslims, and atheists are just as inbred and just as clannish.

I am lucky that my Jewish neighbors are all Ashkenazi, and almost all Reform. The few who aren't are Conservative. I wouldn't want to live near the Orthodox ones. The Jews in my town are no different from their white neighbors in voting habits or lifestyle choices. Ashkenazim are not visibly different from whites once you control for IQ, social status, and zip code.

Well, we'll vote for each other as is. You mean give generic preference to? That is as good a measure of identitarianism as any.

Feryl,

The pattern, well established in Europe, of flatter regions being more progressive, high trust, and upbeat, while rugged topography creates conservatism, clannishness, and pessimism, was soon duplicated in America.

Ironically that's the opposite of what we see now, though for more superficial (economic) reasons. AFF is easier in flatter regions and harder in rugged areas.

Another important point is that minorities are generally more supportive of women in politics compared to whites. This was found in another poll as well. Presumably because they think that women will be more tolerant to them, as well as be more likely to support affirmitive action and resource redistribution.

Great observation, one I hadn't thought of but am not surprised to find. Among men only, whites get a (2.3) score for electing a female candidate while non-whites (again, men only) score a +14.9 for a female candidate. Nothing about race is mentioned for that particular question. It was asked in 2014, so the shadow of Hillary was looming, but it's still a pretty large difference.

Saint Louis,

Yeah, we saw them vent their frustration after the 2016 election by braying about how white women had betrayed the sisterhood. Race trumps sex for most people. There are some especially bitter types (MGTOWs, feminists) where that isn't the case, but it's working against biology. Every white woman has white men she is related to (father, brothers, sons, etc) while very few white women have black women they are related to.

@snorlaxIf there were some sort of dispute between you and an African asylum seeker, towards whom do you expect a typical Ethiopian Jew would be instinctively biased?

That's easy: me, assuming I haven't been doxxed by then. Ethiopian Jews are mostly Likud/centrist types. There have been attempts to convert them to American-style niggerism, but not with much success. If you ask them why they are so poor they more likely than not say something about the 'secular Ashkenazi elite'. Nonsense, obviously, but productive nonsense. Ethiopians are very unlikely to support African immigrants because they are, not irrationally, scared about anything that might undermine their claim to be like, totally 100% as Jewish as anyone else.

In a dispute between a gentile white British tourist and an Ethiopian Jew, towards whom would you be instinctively biased?

If the Ethiopian was wearing a skullcap, then the Ethiopian, no question. If not and the Brit struck me as a SWPL or a Corbynite then the Ethiopian, If neither applies then probably the Brit, but I'm not really representative. For a typical non-haredi Jew it would be the Ethiopian all the way.

While it's true that factors such as religion, political orientation, social class or sex can be powerful group identifiers (intersectionality!), I disagree that race or ethnicity are necessarily weak ones. You would have a hard time finding a stronger group consciousness than among American blacks, and their obsession with all things black blackety-black. Sure, that's in part due to the official ideology, but it's clearly mostly innate.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Some of the worst blackety blacks are 75% or more white.

And blacks are the most extreme case. Blacks are really very different from the rest of humanity in a way that no-one else (Aborigines aside) really is. This is true both in outward appearance and even more so in cognitive traits. The 'natural' element of tribal consciousness when you take blacks out of the equation is much weaker. I think HBD as a general framework for understanding human affairs - rather than just a piece of the puzzle - looks especially plausible when you've spent a lot of time thinking about American history, which is why a lot of HBDers have an exaggratedly Americanocentric perspective.

Another important point is that minorities are generally more supportive of women in politics compared to whites. This was found in another poll as well. Presumably because they think that women will be more tolerant to them, as well as be more likely to support affirmitive action and resource redistribution.

99% of people do not think like this. People do not work out their opinions on individual issues at all, they support a team and the dynamics of debate at the top level of this team determines their views on individual issues. This is why people who did not believe in gay marriage 10 years ago now believe that you should be fired from your job for opposing it. Minorities support team Blue and team Blue says that women are morally superior to women. It's as simple as that.

Once you realise this, an infinite amount of questions like 'why do Jews support Muslim immigrants killing them?' and why do blacks support Mexican immigrants taking their jobs?' become perfectly explicitly without reference to bizarre theories or creative psychology.

-The pattern, well established in Europe, of flatter regions being more progressive, high trust, and upbeat, while rugged topography creates conservatism, clannishness, and pessimism, was soon duplicated in America.-

Aud:"Ironically that's the opposite of what we see now, though for more superficial (economic) reasons. AFF is easier in flatter regions and harder in rugged areas"

We're talking about temperament here, not so much politics per se. People in Northern New England (which has never the farm belt of America, even in the colonial days) and the Upland South are grouchier than people in the Midwest and Plains states. In the early 1990's, it was coastal California that opposed high levels of immigration, not the Central Valley; Texas completely no-showed the issue altogether, even as Texas had gone from being 70-80% white and legacy black in the 1960's to being much more Mexican and Asian by the early 1990's.

The ease of avoiding people you don't like, and the sense of resource abundance, that are possible in the farm belts of the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, the Southern Plains, and the Cali Central Valley, make people more......Slow to rile. But at this stage of the game X-ers and Millennials are in such tough financial shape that it's seriously dented the reputation of globalism. And the flakier people Out West, a region which has only been heavily developed over the last 40-50 years, have a much kinder opinion of globalism than the Northeast, South, and Midwest, regions in which people can intuit that the camaraderie and prosperity that were broadly shared by their ancestors in the 1940's-1970's doesn't exist anymore. Actually, if you study the culture of the 1970's, it's clear that was the decade in which we started to abandon many areas and people deemed to be out-moded or troubled, while a relative handful of areas benefited big time. That was the mood, and during the subsequent economic booms of the mid-80's+, development took off big time in "newer" areas (in the South, West, and Plains) as well as a good chunk of certain urban areas being gentrified. But this has all been based on rotten economic fundamentals; America doesn't produce quality middle class jobs anymore, and we don't make anything anymore, either. Even in the South and the West Coast, there's almost no textile jobs anymore, for example (if you buy older used clothes, even from the 1980's, it's not uncommon to see tags indicating that a pair of jeans were made by American often unionized labor). I think that in the Mountain and Pacific states, people can delude themselves into believing in a post-modern economy, while the realists of the East sense that something is just plain wrong with America 2.0.

Sadly, the Western development and pop. growth of the last 40 years was made possible only by committing to a set of economic norms that put us on a course to massive economic inequality and financial insecurity, whose existence can only be ignored or explained away for so long (Stefan Molyneux et al please stop with Darwinist bull shit that genetics and the free market ought to permit the exploitation of the vulnerable, such sucking up to the rotten status quo also could be heard frequently during the Gilded Age of about 1870-1920).

Back to AFF, it's not all it's cracked up to be. It didn't stop Texas or the Cal Central Valley from being overrun by foreigners. So long as the overall culture is corrupt, decadent elites will make a big mess and rather than be held accountable they will actually impose the costs of their stupid decisions on the masses.

A lot of Millennials are moronically ignorant of (recent) history. California in the 1970's and even 1980's produced a fair number of goods (electronics, clothes, toys, etc.). The state also had a close relationship with arms makers and defense contractors, and much of the state still had a Western "cowboy/ranch" culture. Many conservatives in the 70's or even 80's would rather have lived in the state than in say, Massachusetts.

Modern "red/blue" state culture (that represents the nadir of overly competitive dickheads) shouldn't be imposed on the past. Nor should we act as if hippies in Haight-Ashbury are representative of what typical middle or working class people were like. Actually, elite cultural liberals (and Reaganite yuppies who spearheaded tax cuts for the rich and off-shoring) represented a nascent trend that most Americans were at least moderately skeptical of in the 70's and 80's. Not for nothing was Ross Perot popular in 1991 (Perot was the last great GI Gen presidential candidate, who didn't give a shit about elitist culture war posturing and genuinely wanted to protect the economic security of the broad American population) .

Instead of chest beating about how we just "kicked your ass", maybe we ought to do more insure that stable and secure jobs are available for more regions and classes. Instead of celebrating the outright poverty that is ubiquitous in rural red zones and urban blue zones (and is blamed on one side or the other, instead of the dickhead elites on both sides), maybe we should be compassionate. I like how Tucker Carlson says that CA was screwed by both over active liberal elites (who despise non-high tech industry and rural culture) as well as complacent and lazy conservative elites (who sucked up to cheap labor loving business owners).

"Islam has a serendipitous position in Western civilisation because, for historical reasons, most Muslims are not-whites and so there's little practical problem in having a Muslim identity and following the official ideology, LGBTQERTY issues being the only real sticking point. This is also true for other religions, but as a rule they have followed the same pattern as Jews in seamlessly converting to the official ideology over 3 or so generations without really noticing what they are doing. With Islam, however, the Cathedral has maybe bitten off more than it can chew. I suspect that Islam will eventually provide the exogenous shock that will bring down the liberal system. To an extent, we see that happening already."

I've become partial to John Xenakis' work about resource cycles. Basically, over the last 70 years the population of China, Africa, and the Arab world has soared, which sows future conflict down the road between the highly populated generations and their descendants. Once a population over-shoots, it runs into conflict over resources, which is frequently manifested in wars, genocides, and forced migrations. To put it another way: we don't fear feather indians because they have a small population; but if one or two large generations of Indians was born, it would be a different story. As a tribe grows, it needs lebensraum, esp. if it comes from a region that historically is poor at producing sufficient resources. "Islamaphobia" has become salient because various Muslim tribes and nations are now so over populated (vis a vis resources) that conflict has risen to great levels between Muslim tribes, as well as between Muslims and non-Muslims (and in densely populated Western Europe, with it's history of delayed FF, influxes of Muslims are going to absolutely annihilate the region's enviable safety net as the finances of the region simply can't sustain supporting hundreds of thousands of people who swell the population to begin with and then marry at a young age and reproduce heavily.)

Ostensible concerns over "culture" or ethnic continuity are really only a gloss we put on concerns regarding resources. I have to admit that Molyneux has also stated that conservative concerns about diversity didn't exist in, for example, the 1980's because it was an economic boom decade, where people felt generous. Likewise, the major push for Leftist civil rights in the 1950's and 60's came about because of the economic security felt by Silents and early Boomers.

Ostensible concerns over "culture" or ethnic continuity are really only a gloss we put on concerns regarding resources.

You think so? That materialism strikes me as a conceit of both--ironically, I guess--libertarians and Marxists. Life is about survival and reproduction--material accumulation helps achieve these things (or at least it did--increasingly it does not seem to anymore and instead works against them).

Thanks for the answers. Obviously not what I was expecting, but I hope you won't mind if I dissect your reasoning a bit.

Ethiopian Jews are mostly Likud/centrist types. There have been attempts to convert them to American-style niggerism, but not with much success.

So, my own expectations were informed by the semi-annual New York Times pieces by Israeli or Jewish-American SJWs about the great and good doings of the blackety-blacks, protesting police brutality (their own Black Lives Matter chapter!) or inefficient public services (trouble navigating a social safety net mired in red tape!) or entrenched racism in the IDF ("There, they call us 'Jew.' Here, they call us 'nigger.'").

I of all people should know better than to trust the Times for nonfishwrap purposes. As I frequently point out, the reason otherwise-sensible foreigners suddenly turn into wacko SJWs whenever the discussion turns to US politics, is because they get all their US news via secondhand retellings of the Times. Hey, there's another thing we Satans have in common!

I am at something of a loss for which sources to turn to for accurate reporting of Israeli happenings. (I have similar issues with Russia and China). Rightist sources are prone to absurdist gaslighting like the Palestinians never lived there and/or left voluntarily. However sympathetic to their POV I am, blatant bad faith leaves me little-inclined to believe anything they say. Far-right sources are just the Times again with a dash of paranoid schizophrenia and less 20 IQ points.

If you have any suggestions I'm all ears.

All that said… ya sure? You obviously know a lot more about it than I do, but this sounds suspiciously like those arguments I've heard a lot of, peaking around '04 but continuing to the present, about how Hispanics are "natural conservatives." Do you have polling or precinct data to back that up?

Along with a bunch of other country subreddits, I follow r/SouthAfrica for shits and giggles. (It's been interesting to watch them radicalize over the years, to the point where it's just about the only country subreddit where Trump appears to have a positive approval rating). Whenever election time rolls around, it fills up with posts along the lines of -

"I talked to the maid, the cook, the gardener and the nanny,* and they ALL told me they're fed up with the ANC and this time they're voting DA! And all their family and friends are voting DA too!"

*Capitalist/rope/noose and all that.

And one of the more jaded among them will quickly reply "Sure. That's what they all say."

If you ask them why they are so poor they more likely than not say something about the 'secular Ashkenazi elite'.

An unscientific experiment you could do is to lose the yarmulke, put on an Oxfam t-shirt and your poshest accent, and ask the same question. You might get different answers!

Anyhow, have you also considered whether you're talking to an unrepresentative, self-selected group? You live in the most right-wing conservative part of Israel. Where you're at, a "Likud/centrist type" is sorta… center-left, no? And, I assume, the ones you've met, while not necessarily middle-class, were at least well-off enough to have crossed paths with you. i.e. you did not meet them in the ghetto.

Like, if I went to Miami and reported back that — yes! Hispanics are natural conservatives! — that would maybe establish that I'm a bit of a putz, but it would not establish that Hispanics are natural conservatives.

*Sort of the opposite of what the American left has done. I'd like to say "Make America Great Again" is the best political slogan ever, but it isn't. The best political slogan ever is "a nation of immigrants." It turns the natural inclination towards tribalism against itself: restricting immigration is an insult to me grandpappy! No wonder it's been adopted far and wide regardless of absurdity — Portugal is a nation of immigrants!

a Corbynite

I'm not an expert on demographics of tourism to Israel, but I'd assume that pretty much by definition a British tourist, especially to Jerusalem, wouldn't be a Corbynite. ("Tourist," not "NGOista").

a SWPL

What's wrong with SWPLs? Besides their typical politics, addressed above. I'm a SWPL. AE's fluent in statistical analysis and lives in Kevin Yoder's district, so he's about as SWPL as Kansan shitlords get. I gather you're an ex-SWPL. And once a SWPL, you're never really an ex-SWPL. Search your feelings; you know it to be true.

I'm not really representative.

Ya think?

For a typical non-haredi Jew it would be the Ethiopian all the way.

Sure, and American Jews side with blacks (any kind) even over fellow Jews (as frequently seen in the recent purge of "Beckies"). If it were a black vs. an immediate family member they might have to think about it for a couple seconds. Same with liberal gentile whites.

On Ethiopians: I see where you're coming from, but I don't think I'm overly influenced by the Ethiopians I come across - who are doubtless unrepresentative - if only because I don't think I've ever had more than a one minute conversation with one.

The first thing to understand is that both the IDF and police are perceived within Israel to be Left of center organizations, hence protesting about IDF racism or police brutality does not put you on the Left. Indeed, I think Honeinu, a very Right Wing and somewhat thuggish organization actually sent some of their guys down to support the anti-police protests. Currently, the Ethiopians are exercised about some educationally sub-normal chap (yeah ... I know...) who wandered into Gaza and is being held hostage; again, a lot of settler types are coming out to support them. While I don't talk to Ethiopians very often, I do talk to Israeli right-wingers and, well, they just really like Ethiopians. My ex boss adopted a pair of them - a right handful they were, as I understand, though he'll be damned if he knows why.

It would probably be different if there were a lot more of them and their social pathologies became widespread enough to start causing problems for a lot of Israelis. In the long term, there might be trouble when the Ethiopians realize they still don't have good jobs even thought Likud has been in power for 100 years In the meantime, though, I guess we have providence on our side.

Here's an article from Ha'aretz on voting patterns: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4847998 Funnily enough, it reads a bit like a National Review article on how the 'Black vote is no longer monolithic' only the other way round.

I'll ponder SWPLs.

On Israeli news sources, you could do worse than the Times of Israel. It leans Left, but in a restrained kind of way.

The broader point I'm getting at is that I think the 'Hard' HBD position - that tribal identities are the organic result of innate difference between different racial groups - is basically wrong. A belief in shared ancestry (or shared historical experience) or a belief in your inherent difference from other groups is definitely conducive to strong identities, but it is totally irrelevant whether these beliefs are accurate, except in the second-order sense that it is often easier to convince people of things for which there is no clear evidence to the contrary (like that genetic studies confirm that Ethiopian Jews are not related to any other group of Jews and that they are, errr, black).

Ashekenazi Jews, to continue my theme, are more closely related to Palestinians and Italian respectively than to other groups of Jews, but no-one would imagine that the 'group genetic interests' would lead them to pick the side of Italians, still less Palestinians, than other groups of Jews.

My working theory of identity/nationalism is that it is based on 5 factors:1) Language2) Religion/ideology3) Belief in shared origin/historical experience4) Shared material interests5) Any other traits that unite the group and differentiate it from other nearby groups

The more of these factors that are present, the easier it is to construct an identity. It's easy to see why American civic nationalism is hard to get off the ground. On the other hand, a determined and powerful enough regime can not only make lemons into lemonade, it can make lemons into oranges. Not so long ago, the French did not have a shared language, after all.

This sort of ties in to what I was going to say to Anonymous@6:50. He (I assume it's a he) is right that what many white nationalists don't get is that Jews, on average, are really quite similar to other whites, especially after adjusting for the relevant demographic factors. I live and grew up in one of the most heavily Jewish parts of the country, have met thousands and been friend, neighbor, coworker or classmate to hundreds of Jews. It's downright bizarre to me that people out could be consumed by hatred for Jews, yet by their own admission have never met any.

But, and I noticed this almost as soon as I became politically aware (as a liberal until age 15 or so, then a libertarian until around 19), there are, on average, some differences, that persist even after adjusting for other factors.

That a[n American] person is Jewish doesn't really tell you anything about him. But it is sort of a little fudge factor that makes him a little more likely to be a liberal. A little more likely to be an unhinged SJW, if he's a liberal. A little more likely to be an invade/invite neocon, or else an open-borders libertarian, if he's not. Emphasis on the "little." The fudge factor is small.

Another fudge factor is Jews tend to be a bit more intelligent, particularly verbally, than white gentiles. This too is not so large a factor as to be immediately apparent in one's day to day life. It took me longer to notice, mostly because I grew up in SWPLtopia, where all the children were above average. But as I went out into the world I noticed that 1) most people are dumb as a sack of bricks, 2a) Jews are a lot thinner on the ground than I was used to, 2b) but, they, alone among whites, still averaged just as smart as the people back home.

Antisemites accurately point out that Jews are massively overrepresented among prominent shitlib, neocon and open-borders pundits and advocates. Certain Jews in the HBD-sphere, such as Steve Sailer commenter "Jack D", claim this is fully or primarily explained by the second fudge factor. "The proportion of Jews among NYT columnists is the same as the proportion of Jews among IQ 140+ people." Jack, I know IQ 140+ people, I am an IQ 140+ person, and Tom Friedman, sir, is not an IQ 140+ person.

Neither fudge factor, taken on its own, is large enough to explain the phenomenon. Conquistador-Americans have a similar tendency towards liberalism, neoconnery and open-borders shilling as Jews, but the same IQ 100 average as other gentile whites. They are somewhat, but not hugely overrepresented in the punditariat. (They are of course hugely overrepresented relative to other Hispanics). WASPs* have around the same IQ 110ish average, but the ordinary distribution of political views. They too are somewhat but not hugely overrepresented among the purveyors of bad takes.

*The W stands for "wealthy."

But combine two fat-tailed distributions and you get a much fatter-tailed distribution. Jews are moderately overrepresented among people with high verbal ability, or people with terrible politics, but they are massively overrepresented among people with high verbal ability and terrible politics, and therefore in environments that select for both of those, such as the media. This explains the paradox of why the Jews you meet in real life are mostly fine, and the Jews you see in the media are mostly awful.

Similarly, and finally getting to my point, it's not that mulattos are especially into blackety blackness, it's that they sit right where the fat tails of the "blackety black" and the "can manage something resembling coherence in front of a video camera" bell curves collide.

I think HBD as a general framework for understanding human affairs - rather than just a piece of the puzzle - looks especially plausible when you've spent a lot of time thinking about American history, which is why a lot of HBDers have an exaggeratedly Americanocentric perspective.

Two points: You may not be interested in HBD, but HBD is interested in you. You may not be interested in American politics, but American politics is sure as f*** interested in you.

HBD does not have perfect predictive powers WRT national success — you can still screw things up pretty good with terrible ideas like communism or Islam or (getting meta) open borders — but I can't hardly think of a better predictive tool.

As for whether I or Americans are overly-concerned with blacks, well, blacks are overly concerning. It's one thing to understand on an intellectual level and another to experience for yourself. There's a saying in America: "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." That's less true than it used to be, but true enough.

Apologies if I'm off-base, but I get the sense you do not have a great deal of personal experience with blacks, here meaning underclass American blacks or the equivalent. (Ethiopians are the best kind of black and the Jews are probably the best kind of Ethiopian, and West Indians like in London are also a few notches above American blacks). If you had, it would be intuitively obvious why we're all pro-gun. The one group of whites with a similar gun culture is South Africans. This isn't a coincidence.

Whenever blacks riot over here, people ask why they destroy their own neighborhoods instead of going to the white suburbs and destroying those. That's partly because they're stupid and wired for instant gratification, but it's partly because they know that in the suburbs the people (at least enough of them) are armed. It's obviously verboten to publicly articulate, but everyone knows that after the gun grab comes open season on whites. There are other factors in play too but that's the main one.

As for whether HBD is relevant aside from the black/nonblack distinction, consider how quickly things deteriorate as you move only marginally south of average IQ 100. You get Italy, then Argentina, then Mexico. Israel has a little more breathing room because you have the Ashkenazi overclass to keep the trains running, but you probably still want to focus on the Ice People whilst searching for additional lost tribes.

Let me try again. I think HBD is very important for understanding the world, but not for understanding the formation of group identity. What I'm essentially arguing is that the 2 components of Spandrellian social analysis - tribal dynamics and innate biological differences - should be kept separate.

When working through my thoughts on this, I use a distinction between hardware and software. Both are important, but for different things. RAM determines how fast your computer loads, but what you are looking at on your screen depends on whether you have fired up MS Word or Red Alert.

Now, since post Chomsky and Pinter, reasonable people accept that Humans come pre-equipped with an operating system that determines what software you can install, it's reasonable to imagine their might be differences on the level of personality between different racial groups on an innate level, but I don't really see it.

To make things concrete: it's very clear that blacks as a group have low intelligence, high time preference, and low impulse control compared to whites. This is a necessary and perhaps even sufficient explanation for why areas with large concentrations of blacks are, by white standards, dysfunctional hellholes. However, take an individual black with an IQ of 85 and an individual white with an IQ of 85 (let's also say they are the same for impulse control and time preference though probably they would not be if picked randomly). Are there other innate differences between them on the cognitive and behavioral level? Probably, but what is it that actually stops the black from being able to identify as part of the group with the white? It is, first, differences in physical appearance, secondly, differences in dialect, taste in food and music etc. and, thirdly, certain beliefs the black person has (his origin is in Africa, he is the descendant of slaves, he is the victim of a racist socioeconomic system, the moral obligation to keep it real etc.). Some of these beliefs are true and some are false, but their truth and falsity are completely irrelevant to their role in the formation of group identity. So, to the extent that HBD contributes to the formation of 'black' and 'white' identities it is primarily at the level of physical appearance and not the cognitive traits by which Hard HBDers seek to legitimise white identitarianism.

To put it another way. HBD explains most of the differences between groups, but it explains little about the actual divisions between groups which are, indeed, 'socially constructed'. [Parenthetically, I think being a grown up right winger entails acknowledging that the Left are not always wrong when it comes to matters of fact. You mention one example of Zionists resorting to mythology about the origins of the Palestinians; another example might be the important role that the presence of blacks played in uniting different Europeans Americans around a shared American - i.e. White - identity.]

On Mulattoes: everything you say is quite true, but it doesn't touch on my point. Many, if not most, mulattoes are, from the pure HBD perspective, Whites, and yet they identify as blacks and everyone else identifies them as blacks. This is partly because of physical appearance (where black genes are dominant) and partly because of the history of 'one-drop' rule: again, that is to say for social or historical reasons.

On being Amerocentric: I don't begrudge anyone - still less Americans! - being interested in American politics. I refer to the tendency to explain American affairs in terms of factors not present in other countries where the exact same phenomenon is occuring and, secondarily, a habit of explaining events in other countries using models that were worked out for the American context.

I'd estimate, relative to similarly-situated gentile whites, a 0-10 point leftwards lean on fiscal and foreign policy issues (coding hawkishness as conservative), with the exception of support for Israel where they'll have a 15-20 point rightwards lean, a 5-15 point leftwards lean on law-and-order issues (incl. illegal immigration), and a 10-20 point leftwards lean on social issues (incl. legal immigration). Again, not really enough to have much predictive power at the individual level, but certainly noticeable in the aggregate.

Re: WEIRDOs. I've definitely got a full helping of those northwest European anti-tribalism genes. The whole idea is viscerally and fundamentally alien to me. Stick me in a room full of Asians or Jews or foreigners or even intelligent well-socialized blacks,* and I don't feel the slightest bit uncomfortable. I'm not apprehensive about visiting or living in an early-stages gentrifying neighborhood. Almost without a doubt, I'm a trans-conservative. I've got a great big bleeding heart that can't help but accentuate the positive about every person and every group. While I'm resigned to the strong likelihood it just can't be done, I truly want to find a way to make civic nationalism work.**

*I took a class where I was one of two whites plus 35 seniors from a local all-black high school which had a program to take certain classes through my college. Made a bunch of friends.**Convert everyone to Orthodox Judaism (ow!), apparently.

Strewn about this blog and others, I've posted GSS numbers RE Reg16/Res16 and "hot button" culture issues, mainly for ABANY (abortion for any reason at all) and HOMOSEX (is gay sex always wrong?). Some of it's backed up on my computer (if I can find it), but I'm not sure how much.

In America, it has to be noted that since 1946 most whites don't actually grow up in urban areas; the general pattern is that families set up shop in suburban areas and small towns, and yuppie/SWPL whites end up migrating to the city as young adults. Jews on average are much higher income than gentile whites, and can afford to live in the best areas of the city as they raise kids. Gentile whites usually can't simultaneously juggle the expense of living in a decent urban neighborhood with the expense of private school. I suspect that de-segregation, the civil rights revolution, rising immigration levels etc. have further driven Jews and white gentiles apart, since post-WW2 gentile whites are far more likely to grow up in non-urban areas.

Note that trying to adjust for white race changed the results; with no adjustments Jews were slightly less pro abortion; with no adjustments atheists were definitely more against abortion. Odd.

Jews appear to be almost ferociously in favor abortion, no matter their upbringing. We can't go back in time, but I'd guess that it's only been since the passage of Roe V Wade (which is around the time the GSS started) that abortion became a huge wedge between Jews and gentiles in America. The pre-1960 climate was substantially more conservative and Jews felt obligated to obey what the gentiles wanted, though already by the 1950's liberals were beginning to push the envelope. Only in the 1970's, when "civil rights" became fully sanctioned by mainstream society, did many people began to feel as if a certain.....Group was undermining their culture. It need not be Jews, either; after all, similar changes were seen in Scandinavia. In America Jews are a proxy for decadent liberalism. In less Semitic countries, there was also a similar sense among many ordinary folk that a certain class of highly liberal people were rudely ignoring centuries of tradition in favor of brash experimentation.

Abortion and fag acceptance are probably the two biggest cultural wedges between elites and proles. Erm, prior to the 2000's, in any event (all generations have become more liberal since the later 90's, but recent findings indicate that people born after 1986 are extremely liberal in their views, because they grew up after the early 1990's, when conservatives had lost the culture war).

Also, GSS findings reveal that GIs and Silents have generally been socially conservative, throughout their lives though perhaps being more pro-drug since the late 90's. Boomers registered as historically liberal in their views in the 1970's (almost always opposing to a fairly large degree the stated conservatism of older generations), than they became much more anti-drug and anti-sodomy in the 80's and early 90's. Boomers since the late 90's have become moderately more liberal (on sodomy), and much more liberal on drugs. On abortion, Boomers strangely were most against it in the late 70's (!), but since the early 80's have been split on the issue with about 55% opposing it and 45% being for it.

It could be that as late as 1978, vocally supporting abortion was still considered a bridge too far for most people. After 1980, it became much more acceptable to stridently support the full panoply of your "team's" agenda. Also relevant is that the GSS shows that it was around 1985 that people began to self-identify as being very conservative or very liberal. In the case of abortion, though, it would seem that the Left jumped the gun in the race to be an extremist.

The "culture war" was a horrible thing, in hindsight. Conservatives in the 80's responded hysterically to the changes of the 60's and 70's, which actually backfired as the Left gleefully pushed abortion to the forefront of issues over which to fight. Liberals in the early 1980's actually thought that Reagan would succumb to the Religious Right's (and racial Right's) dreams by restoring freedom of association, overturning Roe V. Wade, mandating prayer in school, etc. Where they got their ideas about race I'll never know (by the 1980's, The Right had totally capitulated to the Left on affirmative action and freedom of association). The fear over abortion and religion was more understandable, though, since Religious Right champions were becoming household names and their sermons were widely heard across the country in the 1980's). Alas, our cultural and political elites were becoming too decadent by the 1980's to actually achieve the goals of cultural conservatives. The "achievements" of liberals in the 60's and 70's have generally attained a kind of sacred status since the mid-1990's, when liberals realized how toothless the religious Right really was and still is.

Since the Right is hopelessly inept on the cultural front, it's up to Gen X-ers and Millennials to steer the GOP towards ethnic nationalism and economic populism. Maybe we can't get Roe V Wade tossed out any time soon, but at least we could stabilize demographics and start making things again in the mean time.

"Ostensible concerns over "culture" or ethnic continuity are really only a gloss we put on concerns regarding resources.

You think so? That materialism strikes me as a conceit of both--ironically, I guess--libertarians and Marxists. Life is about survival and reproduction--material accumulation helps achieve these things (or at least it did--increasingly it does not seem to anymore and instead works against them)."

I think I know so. According to John Xenikas, every nation/civ. epoch goes through cycles that are tied to economic/resource concerns. And I think he's onto something.

The cycle?

1)A crisis occurs, often because of strains induced by resource scarcity. Over-population and competition leads to epidemics, famines, wars, and genocides. Eventually people are exhausted by the death toll, which slows down at some point. (in America and Europe, this would be the Great Depression and WW2 of the 1930's and 40's). Resource level: low and fought over

2) A rebuilding project commences under the tutelage of the survivors/victors, who feel inspired by the renewed emphasis on creation and cooperation. AKA the High phase.Older generations and the systems they run are widely trusted.(As seen in America, Western Europe, and Japan in the 1950's and much of the 60's). Resource level: rising

3) The rebuilding project runs into diminishing returns, none more so than in the eyes of contemporary teenagers and young adults who did not experience the crisis phase before the rebuilding. AKA an Awakening. Older adults lose their esteem, while young people are often visibly angry and defiant at society for it's perceived shortcomings.(As seen most visibly in America and Western Europe from about 1968-1983). Resource level: high and typically well-shared (peak welfare benefits in America would be realized from the mid-60's-mid-80's).

4) The gleaming and slick phase of part 2 has now been demolished, setting the stage for another crisis. "The system" is considered to be a joke, people become openly flippant and materialistic, and political activism is dead. AKA an Unraveling. In America and Western Europe, this would be the period of about 1984-2006. Resource level: falling and/or squandered (as in neo-liberal economics encouraging elite greed)

There are of course generational factors at play here. Silents were born in a crisis phase, Boomers were born in a high era, Gen X-ers are born in the Awakening, and Millennials are born during the Unraveling.- Silents hate fractious conflict as seen during a crisis (Pat Buchanan wishes more than anything else to prevent war) -Boomers hate conformity and team work, as seen in a High. - Gen X-ers hate Boomer type generations for being spoiled (as they are during an Awakening) - Millennials hate corruption and individual excess, the type that peaks in an Unraveling.

Strangely, each generation also feels nostalgia for the era they are born into, even though they don't spiritually fit these eras, since older generations created the culture of these eras. Silents are nostalgic over how Americans banded together to stop Hitler (although many Silents secretly wonder if we would have won if they'd been in charge). Boomers are nostalgic for 1950's neighborhoods where parents trusted adults enough to let their kids roam free (although Boomer parents in the 1970's-1990's adamantly refused to entrust their neighbors with child supervision; ya never know how many child molesters are lurking). Gen X-ers are nostalgic for 1970's movies and early 1980's arcades (even though Gen X-ers make ugly or boring art that has nothing in common with the 70's or early 80's).

I think we're talking past each other a bit. You're talking about "is" and I'm talking about "ought."

100% agree with what you say about formation of group identity.

What I'm saying is that whites do have shared group interests, even if convincing them of this is like herding cats, and that, at this historical juncture, these interests outweigh most real or perceived particularist subgroup interests in importance.

Take Hungarians and Slovaks. They have various disputes. My attitude towards all Hungarian-Slovak disputes: What difference, at this point, does it make? The Turks are pounding on the gate, so it isn't the time to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

America shows that Hungarians, Slovaks and indeed every European nationality are quite capable of forgetting such enmities, coming together peacefully and creating a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. So it would be a good thing if we could drop all the internecine squabbles that caused WWI and II etc. and instead focus on the existential threats at hand.

Is that realistic? Who knows. Probably not. In the US it sorta has to be because we don't have any petty nationalisms to fall back on. Can we call in a favor from providence?

Re: IDF and police as leftist -

I was aware that the settler movement views the IDF and police as hostile/leftist entities. Their closest US equivalent is probably the (much less proportionately numerous or influential) militia movement, which likewise views the military and law enforcement as hostile and leftist.

But nearly all Americans view the militia nuts as, well, nuts, (personally I'd say they make some valid points, but then I'm a nut) and consider the military and law enforcement to be benevolent and rightist or at least apolitical.

Do ordinary Likudniks view the IDF and police as hostile and leftist? If so, is this a recent development?

What else is topsy-turvy in Topsy-Turvy Land? Are university professors rightist? How about journalists, or celebrities?

Re: Mulattos -

Oftentimes they don't really have a choice but to be "black." As you say, black genes punch above their weight (huh, kinda like blacks) when it comes to phenotype. Of course, in a different time, or place (Latin America), if at all possible, they would be sure to pass as white. As recently as a few years ago, a typical mulatto like Colin Kaepernick would alter his appearance to look more white. Now of course Kaep alters his appearance to look more black.

Re: Honesty -

Agreed. I loathe dishonesty and ham-handed rightist retconning (typically employed to resolve the cognitive dissonance after internalizing some leftist precept) is some of the worst. The ur-example is Dems R the Real Racists. Do read the link, it hits all the DRRR high notes in unintentionally-hilarious fashion.

Re: Ethiopians -

OK, I'm satisfied they're a rightist voting bloc. My skepticism about this is not because I was extrapolating from America in particular, but rather that I was extrapolating from every (non-Israel) country blacks share with whites, in each of which they are a monolithically leftist voting bloc.

I was not aware that is was a Likud government that did the famous airlift. Anyhow, that memory will someday fade, even as the knowledge of how the gibsmedats are got spreads.

America took in two large groups of diverse-ish anti-Communist refugees in the mid-20th century, Cubans and Vietnamese. The Dems knew the score and fought tooth and nail to keep them out, calling them fascist baby-killing corrupt plutocrats. Accordingly, the first generation voted 90% GOP. The second generation voted 70% GOP. And the third generation vote 75% Dem. Whoops.

Do ordinary Likudniks view the IDF and police as hostile and leftist? If so, is this a recent development?

I'd say they view them as left-leaning, but non-hostile. The thing is that when all the major Israeli institutions were founded, Israel was a one-party Leftist state. The new government literally shot down a ship full of Irgun fighters, just to show who was boss. Therefore, the trick that the Left plays elsewhere of pretending that the institutions that they run are actually holdouts of Kulak reactionaries just doesn't fly.

So, while the average Likudnik thinks that the Israeli police are decent guys trying to do their job (in my experience they are decent guys trying not to do their job), Ethiopian underclass anti-police sentiment cannot be so easily channeled into Leftism. The settlers are also a lot more mainstream than the militia; our main party is, after all, in the government, so even if people think we're exaggerating, they don't think we are completely wrong. Another factor is that the mutual hostility between Tel Aviv Ashkenazim and Likudnik Mizrahim has been weaponised by the latter under the 'racism' banner. So even the dreaded R word (the G word in Hebrew) doesn't have the same automatically leftist connotation.

What else is topsy-turvy in Topsy-Turvy Land? Are university professors rightist? How about journalists, or celebrities?

Haha. No, but the thing is that the religious have their own parallel media, celebrity, and university systems (Yeshivas don't teach you actual job skills or expand your mind, but then neither do universities). They kind of suck, to be honest, but so does the mainstream media and university system so it's not embarrassing in the same way that evangelical media in the U.S. is. The university system is perceived as so out there by most Israelis that its Leftism doesn't seem to penetrate even thought Israelis have a high tertiary education rate (I just read Caplan' anti-education book and he claims that even in America the professors are broadly ineffective at brainwashing). We do have right wing rappers for the secular Likudnik market and they are quite popular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_(rapper)

On abortion, it's not so much that Jews are the outliers as that Christians (and, residually, lapsed Christians) are.

One group I'd like to see about is Irish-Americans, who are political birds of a feather with Jews. From my anecdotal experience and based on the precinct-level data, I'd estimate Irish-American women in Massachusetts voted at least 80% Hillary.

I mention them because they, or the women anyway, are the ethnic group I associate most with fanatical pro-abortion stances, thanks to the many SCREAMING RANTS I've witnessed once they get started on the subject. (Full disclosure: I am 3/8ths Irish).

Other than in devoutly-Catholic regions like Latin America and the Philippines, there's little cultural aversion to abortion among Sun People. A lot of countries have restrictive colonial-era laws (reflecting the Christian/European morality of the time) on paper, but in practice they aren't enforced. For example, Egypt.

1025 women from six villages in Upper Egypt were included in the study. … The results were that 40.6% (n=416) had aborted at least once; of them 24.6% (n=252) had aborted more than once and were designated as recurrent aborters.

Do you have those results broken out by sex and age? My educated guess is younger (grew up post-Vatican II) Irish-American women are extremely pro-abortion. The men and Silents not so much.

America needs to be de-Irished, badly. It's embarrassing how often Americans cite Irish as their first or second ancestry, when in reality Anglo-Scots ancestry is more common (which is further reinforced by the large infusion of Germans, Dutch, and Protestant French into America). Flight from white? How about flight from Anglo-Tuetonia?

"I mention them because they, or the women anyway, are the ethnic group I associate most with fanatical pro-abortion stances, thanks to the many SCREAMING RANTS I've witnessed once they get started on the subject. (Full disclosure: I am 3/8ths Irish)."

We've seen Minnesotans drift away from the Demonrats (Trump nearly won here!), and many Appalachian whites appear to be doing the same. It seems as if the (non rich white) people resisting the Trump wave fall into two camps: citizen of the world SWPly dorks, most easily found on the West Coast but inhabiting plenty of metro areas across the country; secondly, Ellis Island nostalgia cases with Jews and Northeastern Irish being the worst.

It has been interesting to see the main opposition to Trump coming from the credentialed class, rather than from the labor unions that pushed back against the GOP after the 2010 victory.

Walker won the Wisconsin governorship three times resisting the unions, rewarding his base with lower property taxes. But now it looks like the SWPLs have deserted him and he'll be washed out like Russ Feingold was in 2010. Giving large amounts of money to foreign corporations isn't popular, who'd have thought.

The GOP could easily lose a special election in a Columbus rural/suburban House district here in Ohio, that was gerrymandered to be impossible for a Dem to win. Trump personally grates on people, something he has to address to win back the Gary voters and the UMC voters that went for Clinton.

Something that isn't often said about Appalachians is that they responded to economic decline by moving out. Liberals crow about "red state welfare" and "poor Republican counties in Appalachia" but those same areas are depopulated compared to just 20 years ago. The loss of social capital has been devastating on those remaining, matched by the ruthless desire of the elite to replace them with migrants from the Middle East and Latin America (working in the remaining labor intensive industries like tourism and ag, mining is doomed without exports)

As an aside, one of the frequent complainers for more foreign workers is the tourism business. Since the left has normally condemned the disparity between living standards in the First/Third worlds, one has to wonder why they don't try to encourage tourism in the homelands of the workers brought to scrub toilets here. If Martha's Vineyard becomes unsustainable at First World wages for current demand, there's certainly no shortage of Caribbean countries that would eagerly take the demand.

Like is the case generally with abortion (but almost never discussed), Irish women are more pro-life than Irish men. Men generally are more pro-choice than women, especially once adjustments for other political views are made. Wrt age, yes, older is much more pro life than older, for both sexes.